Hope they take advantage Stella!
Fasten your seatbeltsā¦
Sadly, it is the vaccinated who are causing the problems, not the unvaccinated.
If vaccination gives any protection at all, it is only temporary (around 8 years) whereas natural immunity gained by catching the disease (which in the vast majority of cases is very minor) is lifelong and even passes from mother to baby for its first year of life.
The rise in Measles in older children is due to the only temporary immunity offered by the vaccines, leaving these older people susceptible to catching the illness at a later age, where it can be more serious.
Yes, you heard me right - vaccinating against Measles will cause an increase in the disease whilst catching the disease as a child will reduce its incidence.
regards to all
geoff
Citation please. Measles immunity following vaccination is generally considered lifelong.
There was a Korean paper which demonstrated some reduction in antibody levels but only speculated that the population studied was potentially becoming more susceptible, not actually catching measles. Another study demonstrated effectiveness beyond 15 years at least.
The Korean paper suggested the reduction in antibody titre was because there was lower exposure to wild virus - if you rely on natural immunity there is a high level of cases and of virus in the environment and you get re-exposed all the time boosting your antibody levels. If the vaccination programme is successful then there arenāt many cases/much wild virus around and you donāt get the constant re-exposure.
Paul, we could go around in circles proffering āmy citation is correct - yours is wrongā but this would not get us very far.
In researching this topic extensively I have reached some conclusions and they are based on many varied sources of information. I am constantly looking for more information but I am afraid your citing of āa Korean paper demonstratedā is not going to affect my current position.
The problem is that most people expressing views on this topic have been swayed by the fear mantra put out by those with a vested interest, and have not taken the time to do any research themselves. I do not include you in this group of course.
Regards
geoff
Oh boy deja vu
Yes, I have a feeling weāve been here before as well.
Personally I think spouting poppycock then refusing to back it up with any hard evidence because āwe could go on forever quoting papers at each otherā is a weak debating strategy but it obviously works for Geoff.
Itās okay to say you have done research but if what you read isnāt impartialā¦
Thanks for your kind words Paul.
try this for starters :
-
https://www.france24.com/en/20181025-perspective-richard-halvorsen-vaccines-children-side-effects-risks-diseases-measles
(A recent interview on France 24 with the director of a baby vaccination clinic in london) -
or this: Dick. G; āMeasles againā - BMJ 1980
-
or this : EUvac.net. Measles surveillance annual report200102004
-
or this : Freis Ed. 'deaths from Measles in England & Wales on 1961 Monthly Bulletin of the ministry of health 1963
-
or this : Paul Thomas M.D. āthe vaccine Friendly planā (2016) page 185
oh, and Nellie, Iām sure you didnāt mean it as I have taken it, but those words you say are so, so true and that is why I am so open minded.
regards to all
geoff
Richard Halvorsen is mentioned in the following -
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2151800/
Heās an anti-MMR campaigner so hardly unbiased.
ā¦and an admirer of Andrew Wakefield.
So you are basing your opinions (in part at least) on information from the ā60s and early 80s
In fact opinion which seems to have very little to do with his claim (limited duration of immunity following vaccination for measles leading to many cases in young adults).
1 - Even if Dr Halvorsenās has āformā on this matter in the France 24 piece the discussion on measles vaccination did not make the claim that young adults are getting measles because the vaccination only provides limited protection - he even stated that he was in favour of vaccination.
2- A fact free letter to the BMJ merely asking/opining whether immunisation should be reserved for high risk individuals and the rest left to acquire natural immunity. Possibly a bit left of field even then but 1980 was a long time ago. The idea the measles is āa mild diseaseā comes up again which was a point raised in the first reference - yes, it is mild in many but it is severe in some and fatal in others. If we can improve on the natural mortality of this disease we should do so.
3 - I canāt find this data.
4 - Data from the pre-vaccination era; hardly relevant to your claim. Yes mortality had been falling before vaccination was introduced because medical care generally was improving- especially antibiotics (while measles is a virus the pneumonia that some get can be caused or complicated by a bacterial superinfection in the same way that influenza can precede a bacterial pneumonia). Your point is?
5 - Iām not paying good money to read Dr Thomasās book - all I need to know is that he appears to still be beating the vaccination causes autism drum. That relationship has been busted more times than someone playing casino blackjack for a week straight without sleep.
So, err, not convinced. Thanks for trying though.
Easily found on the NHS website
yes, Nellie, I take you back to your first post on this topic : ā but if what you read isnāt impartialā¦ā
I am aware that Cognitive dissonance is a difficult barrier to overcome, and I donāt ask anyone to believe what I say, I have no axe to grind, I only want what is best for us all.
All I ask is : look at the vested interests involved, follow the money and do the research yourselves.
Ask yourself why they refuse to do research comparing the health of vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations
Ask yourself why there are government vaccine injury compensation boards who pay out millions each year if vaccines are safe.
Ask yourself why vaccines do not have to go through the same thorough tesing regime required for other drugs.
Ask yourself why the vaccine manufacturers cannot, by law be sued for any vaccine injury.
Ask yourself why only this year, the Italian government asked the Corvela corporation to test various vaccinations and their results showed not only that many of the antibody inducing ingredients were missing, but there were many toxins present which should not have been. (references available).
Finally, In 2016 the following paper was published in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, authored jointly by staff from the Canadian Public Health Agency and the US CDC., the authors noted that measles samples from 38% of the cases tested from the 2015 US outbreaks had come from vaccines . The live, attenuated measles viruses used in vaccines had made either the person they were given to sick with measles, or spread to other people who then got measles.
People deserve the right to choose. They deserve the right to safe vaccines if they so wish and those who so choose, deserve the right to say no.
If you had bothered to read it properly you would know that it was an article on the NHS website reporting DANISH research ,carried out in DENMARK and therefore subject to no Uk influence whatsoever
and no doubt free of any influence from the worldwide pharmaceutical industry either.
oh, if only it were that simple.
Perhaps the rate of Measles is going up, (as is the rate of Autism and allergies), just as the rate of vaccines given is also going up, I donāt disagree with that, however I stand by what I said earlier, the short term effectiveness of Measles vaccines is probably a major contributory factor because it is reducing the number of people benefiting from the lifetime immunity provided by catching the disease.